Response to “Old Time Religions”

To the Editor:

Sometimes one reads a column and gets overwhelmed as to how to respond and where to begin. Ed Raymond’s article from Aug. 11th on “Old-Time Religions!” left me speechless.  Not knowing the author as to whether he is trying to write strictly as a provocateur or whether he thinks he is accurately recollecting events in history, I will respond to the piece as if it is written with sincerity.

What comes to mind first of all is the idea of logical fallacies: hasty generalization; ad hominem; post hoc, ergo propter hoc; guilt by association; appeal to consequences of a belief; appeal to fear; appeal to ridicule; and confusing cause and effect, amongst others. The essay would be a very good manuscript for a class studying logical fallacies.

But I must simply address some basic facts. “Atheism is exploding.” According to the distinguished Harvard scholar Robert Putnam and his co-author David Campbell in their recent book American Grace, this is simply not the case. They did detailed personal interviews of over 3,000 Americans and only six self-described as atheists. There is a myth that because church attendance has decreased and more Americans self-describe as unaffiliated, atheism is on the rise. This perception has certainly been enhanced by all the recent books championing atheism. Raymond seems to make the point that atheists can be good (which is very true, but not necessary) while religious people kill each other (which also can be true, but not necessary). There is overwhelming data to show that volunteerism, serving the poor, giving money away, building hospitals and many other such activities have a direct correlation to the depth of one’s religious convictions. Hasty generalizations don’t require fairness.

He then goes on to talk about the 2,000 year long Golden Age of the 1380 year old Islamic faith and then goes into a description of the Crusades and the role of women. One only wishes he would take the time to read a couple of books by Rodney Stark, the well known sociologist of religion. In “Victory of Reason” Stark goes into great detail about the recent scholarship of the so called dark ages and the myth of the superiority of Greek and Roman thought over Christian thought. In Stark’s recent book “God’s Battalions” he debunks many of the common misperceptions about the Crusades.

As to Raymond’s comment “I have not read the entire Bible, but have spent time grazing in a few of the 170 versions,” there are many translations, but scholars are in very strong agreement as to the oldest of the Greek manuscripts that were compiled, and yes there are great scholars who know the original Greek very well. The idea of comparing 170 versions as to language is of no interest to any scholar, but studying the original Greek and its original intent is of great interest. Raymond thankfully admits he has not read much of the Bible or Koran, but then goes on to state that “both ‘sacred’ documents show disrespect and the utmost disdain for women.” This will come as a great surprise to many scholars who have written extensively about the way in which Jesus elevated women to a previously unknown position.

If the best argument for debunking religion is 700 years(???) of Mohammed, Warren Jeffs, and snake handlers, one wonders if anyone takes Raymond seriously, and as I write this I wonder why I am even taking the time to respond. I guess the last paragraph did give me some solace. Anyone who is quoting T. S. Eliot’s poem “The Hollow Men” connects with me at least in some measure. Eliot’s deep Christian faith inspired much of what he wrote and one would hope Raymond might reflect on the last four words (“Headpiece filled with straw”) and then reread what he wrote in his essay.

-Howard Dahl
Fargo, ND